Web-based Learning Solutions for Communities of Practice
Web-based Learning Solutions for Communities of Practice
Web-based Learning Solutions for Communities of Practice
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Conditions and Key Success Factors <strong>for</strong> the Management <strong>of</strong> <strong>Communities</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Practice</strong><br />
or as a pilot project in order to assess staff reaction<br />
(Indiana University); and in others, such as<br />
Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, CoP are created and<br />
their staff is <strong>for</strong>ced to become a part <strong>of</strong> them. In<br />
this last case, both the spontaneity <strong>of</strong> creation <strong>of</strong><br />
communities and the voluntary participation <strong>of</strong><br />
their members comes into question, which may<br />
justify why they should probably be referred to<br />
by another name. However, the implementation<br />
<strong>of</strong> these community <strong>for</strong>ms has been a success <strong>for</strong><br />
the company, since it has achieved the objectives<br />
originally set. So is it really indispensable <strong>for</strong> the<br />
creation <strong>of</strong> communities to be spontaneous and<br />
led by members?<br />
It is also true that any change today (especially<br />
in small and medium-sized enterprises) towards<br />
knowledge management or towards the creation<br />
<strong>of</strong> value-<strong>based</strong> on individual competencies entails<br />
important organization restructuring (as can be<br />
seen in the case <strong>of</strong> the Basque Country automotive<br />
company). <strong>Communities</strong> <strong>of</strong> practice can facilitate<br />
these goals as they are <strong>based</strong> on the transfer <strong>of</strong><br />
knowledge in order to create value. So, even if<br />
CoPs are promoted, it’s important to consider that<br />
achieving success requires respecting the identity<br />
basis, generating the truth between members<br />
and considering also the individual goals. This<br />
is in line with what Thompson (2005), <strong>based</strong> on<br />
a single case study, identified as the distinction<br />
between a Seeding and a Controlling Structure.<br />
In the case in which communities are <strong>for</strong>med due<br />
to an organizational initiative and attendance is<br />
mandatory, it would most likely evolve to some<br />
other knowledge mechanism, possibly more focused<br />
to transferring explicit knowledge, which<br />
can be interesting in order to save costs, mostly at<br />
the beginning, but does not yield the results that a<br />
community sharing tacit knowledge yields.<br />
Can <strong>Communities</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Practice</strong> be<br />
Structurally Designed?<br />
Following along the lines <strong>of</strong> the previous argumentation,<br />
there is another controversy that is<br />
important to clarify. According to CoP’s theoretical<br />
background, communities <strong>of</strong> practice are<br />
not units that can be designed – in this context<br />
design is understood as a systematic, planned,<br />
and reflexive colonization <strong>of</strong> time and space in<br />
the service <strong>of</strong> a task, while it may not only include<br />
the production <strong>of</strong> artifacts, but also the design <strong>of</strong><br />
social processes such as organizations or education.<br />
Authors reiterate in any discussion on the<br />
design <strong>of</strong> learning—which cannot be designed<br />
because it belongs to the environment <strong>of</strong> experience<br />
and practice—that communities <strong>of</strong> practice<br />
have already existed <strong>for</strong> a long time and are not<br />
a new fashion in design or a type <strong>of</strong> pedagogical<br />
organization or device to be implemented. <strong>Communities</strong><br />
are about content, about learning as a<br />
live experience <strong>of</strong> negotiating meaning, not about<br />
<strong>for</strong>ms. There<strong>for</strong>e, they can be recognized, encouraged,<br />
supported, and nourished, but not designed.<br />
<strong>Learning</strong> cannot be designed either, it can only<br />
be facilitated or thwarted.<br />
The important and critical fact <strong>for</strong> our management-<strong>based</strong><br />
perspective is that infrastructures,<br />
systems, resources, and connections can be chosen<br />
and rein<strong>for</strong>ced in order to nourish communities<br />
<strong>of</strong> practice. As a matter <strong>of</strong> fact, the reflection on<br />
which type <strong>of</strong> community could be interesting at<br />
an organizational level through the dimensions<br />
studied in this research encourages organizations<br />
to create communities <strong>of</strong> practice, but not to design<br />
them. However, it is possible <strong>for</strong> an organization<br />
to understand the type <strong>of</strong> communication needed<br />
at an organizational level, the type <strong>of</strong> community<br />
that can make an impression on potential members,<br />
and the type <strong>of</strong> knowledge that must be shared<br />
in everyday work. With this in<strong>for</strong>mation, the<br />
organization in question should have the ability<br />
to develop communities.<br />
In short, the process <strong>of</strong> developing communities<br />
<strong>of</strong> practice is closer to agriculture (cultivation)<br />
than to architecture (design). Nevertheless,<br />
<strong>based</strong> on the experiences analyzed previously, it<br />
would seem that the role <strong>of</strong> organizations is to<br />
be sensitive to the importance <strong>of</strong> the communi-<br />
321